Partly allowed

Smt.Seeta W/O. Late Ramchandra Nayak v. the Senior Assistant Director

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2024WP/110403/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Daily-wager terminated after seeking regularization challenged the Labour Court's award rejecting reinstatement. The High Court held she failed to prove 240 days' continuous service, found no perversity in the award, but directed lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000 with 6% interest on default.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay petitioner lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000 within three months, failing which 6% p.a. interest from date of order.

Smt.Seeta W/O. Late Ramchandra Nayak Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12826 WP No. 110403 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.110403 OF 2017 (L-TER)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.SEETA W/O LATE RAMCHANDRA NAYAK, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: HALAKAR CROSS, HEGADE ROAD, KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI S.L.MATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE, (ZILLA PANCHAYAT) HONNAVAR, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA.

¶14

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, HONNAVAR, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR.

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, LALBAGH, BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 AND R3; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING AN AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, BELAGAVI DATED 05.06.2017 IN REF.NO.49/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH FULL BACK WAGES FROM THE DATE OF TERMINATION OF HER SERVICE WITH EFFECT FROM 20.11.2013 AND ETC.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12826 WP No. 110403 of 2017

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Challenging award dated 05.06.2017 passed by Labour Court, Belagavi, in Ref.no.49/2014 at Annexure-E, and seeking for direction for reinstatement with full backwages etc. this writ petition is filed.

¶25

Sri S.L.Matti, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, petitioner appointed as daily wager in Class-IV post in office of respondent no.1. She worked as such at Sirsi, Kumta and Honnavar from 1992 to 20.11.2013. She worked continuously for more than 20 years. During said period, her salary was enhanced from Rs.800/- p.m. to Rs.1,000/p.m. When she sought regularization by raising dispute before Labour Officer, her services were terminated orally without issuing any notice. Same was illegal. Therefore, she raised dispute. On failure of conciliation, dispute was referred for adjudication by Labour Court, Belagavi, under Section 10(1)(c) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (‘I.D.Act’ for short). Same was registered as Reference No.49/2014. On filing of claim statement, respondents entered appearance and filed

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12826 WP No. 110403 of 2017

¶27

objections, wherein it was contended that petitioner had

¶28

worked on contractual basis.

¶29

Based on pleadings, Labour Court framed following

¶30

issues:

¶31

(i) Whether first party workman proves that she was working as daily wage workman in office of respondent no.1?

¶32

(ii) Whether first party workman proves that she was illegal terminated from services orally in violation of Section 25(f) of I.D.Act. with effect from 20.11.2013?

¶33

(iii) Whether respondent no.1 is justified in terminating service of first party workman with effect from 20.11.2013?

¶34

(iv) Whether first party workman is entitled to reliefs sought for in claim statement?

¶35

Thereafter, petitioner examined herself as W.W.1

¶36

and got marked Exhibits W.1 to W.12 along with 54 receipts. Respondents examined one witness as M.W.1 and got marked Exhibits M1 to M11. It was submitted, though petitioner deposed that respondents had maintained Muster Roll, Payment Registers and NMR Registers and worked as per instructions of Officers, but same was totally ignored leading to miscarriage of justice. Even when respondents custodian of records failed to produce Muster Roll, Payment Registers and NMR Registers,

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12826 WP No. 110403 of 2017

¶38

Labour Court relied entirely on Exhibits M1 to M9 produced by them and which were for subsequent period of service, to conclude that she was working on contract basis, producing parasites in laboratory at rate of 10 paise per parasite allegedly as per quotation submitted by her. It was submitted, Labour Court failed to consider fact that petitioner had vehemently denied execution of said documents.

¶39

It was further contended, though petitioner had filed interim application under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC for issuance of witness summons to Assistant Director of Horticulture, Kumta and Deputy Director of Horticulture, Sirsi, Labour Court rejected said application on 07.04.2017 assigning untenable grounds. It was submitted, entire case of respondents was, petitioner was carrying out work on contract basis for producing parasites and was being paid on basis of production. But, in cross-examination, MW.1 admitted no worker was employed on contract basis. It was further contended, production of parasites could be done only in laboratory. When admittedly, there was no laboratory at Sirsi, where petitioner was initially employed and petitioner was later directed to work at Kumta and Honnavar, and petitioner had

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12826 WP No. 110403 of 2017

¶42

continued to work as per directions for more than 20 years, termination of her service merely on ground that she had sought regularization, that too without complying with Section 25-F of I.D. Act, termination would be illegal.

¶43

It was contended, in any case, defence adopted by respondents that petitioner worked on contract basis would be in violation of provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, without registration and obtaining licence under said Act. Fact that work performed by petitioner was in nursery and office work, which is perennial in nature was also a material factor required to be taken note of by Labour Court. Failure had rendered award unsustainable. And relying on decision in case of Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op.Market Society Ltd., v. State of Tamil Nadu & Others reported in AIR 2004 SC 1639, learned counsel sought relief.

¶44

On other hand, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned HCGP for respondents no.1 and 3, sought to oppose petition. At outset, it was submitted, respondents had unequivocally denied employment of petitioner. It was submitted, in their objections, respondents had stated that petitioner used to come to their

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12826 WP No. 110403 of 2017

¶46

office asking for contractual work of nursing and production of rare kind of parasite used to curb bacteria/insects, which infect coconut trees at its laboratories. Since there was widespread cultivation of coconut in said area, farmers used to collect friendly parasites to stop infection of coconut trees, free of cost. As incidents of infection occurred during months of January to May, parasites were cultured from September till March. Petitioner was amongst those who used to come to laboratory as and when required, to culture parasites. Production of parasites was on contract basis as per bid rates. Petitioner submitted bid at 10 paise per parasite, which was accepted and accordingly, from year 1999 to 2006, payments were made to petitioner based on production, as evident from Ex.W.12. It was further stated that production of parasites was later outsourced to certain agencies through NGOs.

¶47

It was submitted, having produced said documents, but finding them in consistent with plea, petitioner had resorted to denying her signature on said documents. Labour Court had rightly appreciated entire material on record and arrived at proper conclusion. It was submitted, Labour Court being final Court for appreciation of evidence, its conclusions based on

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12826 WP No. 110403 of 2017

¶50

material on record cannot be lightly interfered with. On said ground, sought dismissal of writ petition.

¶51

Respondent no.2 is served and unrepresented. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶52

From above, it is seen an award of Labour Court is under challenge. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S. Viswanathan

¶53

reported in (2005) 3 SCC 193 has stated about scope for interference with findings of Labour Court by High Court as follows:

¶54

“12. Normally, the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, is the final court of facts in these types of disputes, but if a finding of fact is perverse or if the same is not based on legal evidence the High Court exercising a power either under Article 226 or under Article 227 of the Constitution can go into the question of fact decided by the Labour Court or the Tribunal. But before going into such an exercise it is necessary that the writ court must record reasons why it intends reconsidering a finding of fact. In the absence of any such defect in the order of the Labour Court the writ court will not enter into the realm of factual disputes and finding given thereon. A consideration of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge shows that nowhere has he come to the conclusion that the finding of the Labour Court

¶55

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12826 WP No. 110403 of 2017

¶56

was either perverse or based on no evidence or based on evidence which is not legally acceptable. Learned Single Judge proceeded as if he was sitting in a court of appeal on facts and item after item of evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry as well as before the Labour Court was reconsidered and findings given by the Labour Court were reversed. We find no justification for such an approach by the learned Single Judge which only amounts to substitution of his subjective satisfaction in the place of such satisfaction of the Labour Court.”

¶57

Since, challenge by petitioner-workman is on ground of conclusions by Labour Court being in ignorance of material on record, award requires to be tested on perversity. In this regard, it is firstly contended that petitioner specifically asserted, she was appointed on daily wages by respondent no.1 at Sirsi, and had filed application for issuance of witness summons to officials at Sirsi. Same was rejected on untenable grounds. It is contended, Labour Court failed to draw adverse inference for failure by respondents to produce Muster roll, NMRs and Payment Register for period of her first appointment i.e., from 1992 onwards.

¶58

Perusal of claim statement reveals, petitioner specifically asserted she was first appointed as daily wager in

¶59

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12826 WP No. 110403 of 2017

¶60

1992 and continued to work in office of Assistant Director of Horticulture, Sirsi, upto 16.05.1999 and thereafter, transferred by oral order to Office of Assistant Director of Horticulture, Kumta, where she was entrusted work of office attender. She was also assigned additional duty of working in nursery. She continued said work till December, 2005, and in January, 2006, she was again transferred by oral order to Office of Assistant Director of Horticulture, Honnavar, where she worked till 19.11.2013. According to petitioner, main reason for termination of service was when petitioner along with other daily wage employees submitted representation to Director of Horticulture, Bengaluru, for regularization of service. At outset, it is seen, petitioner did not examine any other co-worker to corroborate her claim about her appointment in year 1992 and her continuation till year 2013.

¶61

From Labour Court records, it is seen petitioner had filed application, but specific purpose stated in said application/affidavit is for deposition about documents/records got marked by her, (perhaps due to fact that documents appended to Ex.W.12 were not original or certified copies but obtained under provisions of RTI Act). From above, when

¶62

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12826 WP No. 110403 of 2017

¶63

specific purpose for filing application was not to produce Muster Roll, NMRs and Payment Register, mere filing of application would not discharge initial burden on petitioner-workman.

¶64

Insofar as denial of execution of documents appended to Ex.W.12, even Labour Court noticed that said documents were obtained by petitioner herself under provisions of RTI Act and got marked by her. In absence of any evidence to contrary, petitioner would be bound by contents. Therefore, Labour Court cannot be stated to have committed any grave material illegality or irregularity.

¶65

Insofar as contention based on admission by respondents about petitioner having worked and about not employing anyone else, it is seen both in pleadings as well as in deposition, respondents have maintained clear stand that petitioner worked as contractor and for which payments were made. Perusal of deposition of M.W.1 reveals admission is about not appointing anyone on contract basis, which in context of their pleading and deposition would imply not taking any employees on contract basis. Even documents/Exhibits indicate payments having been made to petitioner for her

¶66

11 -

¶67

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12826 WP No. 110403 of 2017

¶68

contract work namely production of parasites at 10 paise per parasite. In fact, payments made vary from Rs.800/- to Rs.4,000/-. Therefore, said contention would not carry much weight.

¶69

Since, dispute in question is about termination from service in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, as held in case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani reported in (2002) 3 SCC 25, burden would be on workman to establish that he had worked for a minimum period of 240 days in twelve months preceding date of illegal termination. In instant case, it is seen, petitioner-workman pleaded that she was appointed on daily wages by Assistant Director of Horticulture, Sirsi. As held above, there is failure by petitioner to establish said mandatory requirement.

¶70

However, relief is sought by relying on decision in Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op.Market Society Ltd.’s case (supra). Careful perusal of said decision reveals even after arriving at conclusion about failure to establish illegal retrenchment, Hon’ble Supreme Court had not disturbed arrangement whereunder respondent-Society had agreed to

¶71

12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12826 WP No. 110403 of 2017

¶72

continue services of petitioners’ therein in same position as earlier. But in instant case, respondents have specifically asserted that work of production of parasites was outsourced to contractors through NGOs would come in way of granting such relief. Therefore, in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and without same being taken as precedent, it would be appropriate to provide some lumpsum compensation to petitioner [Incharge Officer v. Shankar Shetty reported in (2010) 9 SCC 126].

¶73

For foregoing reasons, it is held none of grounds urged in writ petition would be tenable. No grounds to interfere with award passed by Labour Court. Writ petition is disposed of by directing respondents to pay to petitioner lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, within period of three months from date of receipt of certified copy of this order, with condition that in case of failure, same would attract interest at rate of 6% p.a. from date of this order.

¶74

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶75

CT-ASC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

¶76

Smt.Seeta W/O. Late Ramchandra Nayak v. the Senior Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Seeta W/O. Late Ramchandra Nayak v. the Senior Assistant Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Shabbir Ghorikhan S/O Mohammad Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt. Shwetha S/O Manjunath Alias Manjappa Madiwal Vs Manjunath Alias Manjappa Madiwal S/O Krishna Papul Madiwal

Smt Bharathi W/O Subhash Patil Vs Subhash Ishwar Patil

Gurushiddappa S/O Sangappa Belavatagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Yellappa S/O. Tippanna Karigar, Vs the Management of

The Management South Western Railway Institute, Vs Sri. K. Kanta Rao S/O Yesurantnam Doddamani